They call them "reasoned" decisions...

....but sometimes you have to wonder about how "reasoned" they actually are.

Inge kindly supplied a link to the LADA (oh alright, ALAD, you know who I mean) document setting out their reasoned decision, all 42 pages of it.

In case you don't have time to go paddling through it all, here is my interpretation.

The first few pages are taken up with confirming that Frankie is a rider, participating in a UCI race, adhering to their rules: he was duly tested, the banned substance - Xipamide - was found, he requested that the B samples were tested, they were, and they also proved positive for Xipamide.

A date for the hearing was eventually set, with Frankie asking for extra time to get the reports that he needed.

The UCI asked to be present at the hearing, and this was allowed. (I have no idea if this is significant, but if the UCI had a rep there, hopefully they won't be objecting to the decision.)

By Page 6 we are getting into the "court" section - presentation of all sides of the case.

First the UCI. "He raced at one of our races, under our rules: he broke one of those rules therefore we want him punished."

Next ALAD: "We have jurisdiction to punish him, he's ours, get your hands off him." (I may be paraphrasing a little at this point.) There is a lot of legal stuff about precedent, "we've done this before, we know what we are doing."  I think the general idea was to establish that ALAD were competent to examine the case, and give a judgement at the end.

Now it's Frankie's turn:  Frankie agrees that he is indeed a cyclist, competing in a UCI race, and agrees that he should abide by all their rules.

Next there is a whole load of jargon about the fight against doping, and each anti-doping body and federation, and the UCI, recognising every other anti-doping body, federation etc and agreeing that although they can make their own decisions and dish out their own punishments, it cannot be in any way contrary to the position of the UCI.

Sigh.

We're at article 50, of 216 plus two pages. This could take some time. Get yourselves a drink, settle down, and let's see what we get.

Oh, a lot of repetition and confirmation that Frankie had a licence, and everyone who rides under licence agrees to be bound by the rules of the licence, ie don't dope. We get it! Get on with it!

Article 59, at last, the allegation: "He had a banned substance in him."

60: Frankie agrees that he did indeed have Xipamide in his system.

61: A reminder that the UCI don't have to prove that you took it in order to punish you: it's up to you to prove that you didn't.

62. It's worth repeating this one word for word:"...it is stated that riders must refrain from using any substance, food or drink which they know the composition. It should be noted that the composition indicated on a product is not always exhaustive. The product may contain prohibited substances not included in the composition."

I think they mean to say that riders must refrain from using any substance, food or drink of which they DO NOT know the composition.

63-69. Establishment of proof, Xipamide is bad, 2 year ban for first offence,  BAN HIM! BAN HIM! *leans away from the reasoned decision in fear*

70: Frankie, resolutely and calm, invokes the article that if he can prove he didn't take it to enhance performance, he can have the reduced penalty, ranging from the minimum (reprimand) to the full 2-year ban.

71. He then starts to present his arguments: firstly, he did not intentionally take Xipamide. Indeed, it is an obsolete form of doping, as it doesn't mask anything successfully, now that testing has improved.

72 His doctor confirms this is true.

73. Frank says his blood values were normal, and the expert, Paul Scott, confirms that Frankie's biological passport shows this to be true. A blood test on the day following the adverse finding gives Frankie's haemocrit level as 40%, and says this is rather low. (He was tired, remember?) Anyone doping would have had a much higher level. (I seem to remember that 50% was the magical figure that the dopers had to get below, in order not to be caught: anything above 50% was a sure sign of doping.)

74. Hair analysis by another expert shows no steroids, and no excessive testosterone.

75.  Witness statement by Maxime! No funny business, a relaxed atmosphere in their shared room, and the comment that Frankie felt tired, and had realised that he would not get good results that year. Yay for Maxime!

76. Frank argues that a diuretic is completely the wrong thing to be taking in an endurance sport in a hot month. He points out that it is normally used by athletes competing in sports with weight categories, in order for them to lose weight to get into a lower category (which gives them an advantage). There is no such weight category in cycling.

77. Frankie says therefore it was not something he took, he is willing to take a polygraph (lie detector)( and for your delight and delectation, I can tell you that I have taken a polygraph test, many years ago, when I worked in a company that was experiencing internal sabotage to the products. Every single employee, even us office workers, had to take the polygraph test to prove we weren't the ones that did it. They caught the two that did. Polygraphs work.), and that he thinks it was a contaminated supplement.

78.  Frankie lists the supplements he took in the first two weeks of the tour. For your interest, they were:

- SIS Go Gel Isotonic Energy ;
- SIS Go Gel Plus Nitrates ;
- SIS Go Gel Plus Caffeine ;
- AM Sport L-Carnitine 2000mg ;
- Alpha-Liponsäure ;
- First Endurance Ultragen RS-Recovery ;
- AM Sport Aminosaüren Pulver ;
- First Endurance Optygen ;
- Deba Pharma Mineral Complex ;
- Sportpharm Bar.

Ugh. So glad, on so many levels, that I am not a professional athlete. All I need is tea and toast in the morning, a spot of lunch, and something solid for tea, with the occasional biscuit/bag of maltesers/piece of fruit to keep me going.

79: (a rather interesting point) - all these supplements were provided by the RadioLeopard medical team, and some of them were supplied by their sponsors. Suppliers and sponsors change each year: and all members of the team are provided with the same supplements. 

There was then a sentence that didn't translate properly (oh, my rusty French!) and I think it meant that riders did not necessarily take all the supplements provided by the team. But it could have been meant to suggest that riders - or in this case, Frankie - did not take supplements other than those provided by the team. I'm not sure.

80. A doctor examined samples of all 10 supplements, and did not find any Xipamide. They are fairly certain that these are the same batch as those used during the Tour, although they were collected in September.

81. The doctor had also examined two medical items provided by the team: Nexium (for heartburn) and EMLA cream (local anaesthetic cream, and I think we can all guess which part of the anatomy that would be used on).

82. Drat! Both negative for Xipamide.

83. Another expert confirmed the tiny amount found was consistent with the ingestion of a contaminated supplement within a couple of days before the test.

84. Contador! Why is the name Contador in this hearing? Oh, Frankie is referring to Conti's case, whereby it was generally agreed that he'd eaten something containing just a little of the banned substance - ah, we remember that dammned clenbuterol, don't we? Huh, bet my spell-check doesn't - but that they would not be able to prove exactly where it came from.

85. The sabotage theory was shot down in flames, as Frankie (being a team leader) would not have had to take a bottle from a spectator for anything other than spraying/cooling himself.

86. Legal bit about in the absence of proof, the most likely scenario would be the contaminated supplement, as per Contador (getting another mention), with the sabotaged bottle being less likely...

87. ...and it has been shown that there was no intent to dope, due to the tiny amount, wrong substance, etc.

88. It appeared to be clear in this case that the Xipamide was not taken to mask doping, so please please, pretty please, can we have the reduced ban option?

89. Basically, "was the athlete at fault for accidentally ingesting the banned substance - did he make every effort to avoid it."

90. We learn that Frankie has the habit of personally checking labels, even on the items supplied by the team. It is not possible to be more thorough, other than by sending everything away for analysis, which even CAS agrees is unrealistic.  Frankie accepts all food supplements given to him by the team, this demonstrates the full confidence that he has in his team. 

91.  Suggestion: as the biological passport is perfectly ok, can we please have a reprimand?
92. And as Frankie has already been in a voluntary suspension, then if it has to be a suspension, can it please be backdated?
93. There would be no reason to annul any results, especially those of the team, particularly as the team results were taken from the top 3 riders, and Frankie wasn't one of them, please, puppy eyes?
94. And while we are talking of puppy eyes, there's no need to invoke the fine of 70% of wages if a 2-year ban is given, is there? 
95. Frankie (with more puppy eyes) confirms his agreement to pay the UCI fees...

ALAD step up the bench, and waffle on about legal stuff for a while:

97: ALAD say the experts' reports, even the doctor in the lab in Cologne, agree that the amount was so small that masking of doping is unlikely, and accidental ingestion is rather more likely.

98. They agree that Frankie probably ingested it accidentally, but express disappointment that he couldn't prove exactly how.

99. OOh, they're getting stern: just because it's a small amount, don't think that you're going to get away with a lesser ban or just a reprimand.  Being "done" for specified substances, rather than banned substances, does not automatically mean a lesser punishment.  (Eh? Why not? Oh, in case they were used as masking agents, I suppose...)

100 (blimey, not even half-way through: shall we take a break? Or do you want to get it over and done with? Oh, ok, I'll carry on.) Slap on wrist for Frankie, for failing to establish exactly how he accidentally ate it.

101. ALAD are getting stroppy: they say they have to ascertain whether the Xipamide was in common food, team supplements, team beverages, or a bottle from a teammate or spectator.

102. ALAD run through the options: common food? Not likely or everyone would have shown signs. Team supplements? Nope, they were tested. ALAD considered it most likely that it was received from another teammate or a spectator, in which case Frankie was grossly negligent. Pff! They are a bit aggressive on this, aren't they? Are they trying to suggest that a team-mate was doping and Frankie got the wrong bottle? Talk about a witch hunt, in the wake of the Lance thing, are they possibly looking at Horner??  They stated that sabotage was "highly unlikely". Drat, there go our theories about Mr Bruyneel being responsible...

103. Something about the contamination of a container used to pass on a "clean" drink: the translation is not very clear. But ALAD are not convinced about it, whatever it was.

104. CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport - they are not involved yet, but keep being quoted) say that failure to do personal research, and relying on the team, is a fault on the part of the athlete.

105. ALAD say ok, two years suspension.   Awwk!

106.  ... but ok, you can have less. But not just a reprimand. There must be a ban. And it must start from now, as you didn't sign the declaration of temporary suspension that CAS sent you. Frankie looks worried, and says nervously "Err, but I voluntarily suspended myself...."   ALAD look at each other. Ah, but CAS are taking into account Frankie's voluntary suspension. Confusion reigns.

107. Legal stuff about delays..and 108, something about Frankie losing any results he gained in the Tour. As if it mattered?? Did he get much in the first two weeks? I can't remember, off-hand, and I don't want to try to check the Radioleopard site, as it takes so long to load, due to their fancy graphics.

Anyway, now the UCI take the stand. My soul starts to make faint gasping sounds, as though to indicate that it is being drawn out of me... I firmly push it back in place, and we continue. Well, having got this far...

109. The UCI get off to a great start, in typical UCI fashion, by saying that Frankie ought to get a 2-year ban as he has failed to show how the Xipamide got into his system. And actually, all those supplements that Frankie was taking (the ones provided by the team, the ones that all riders take) well, weren't they taken to improve performance? 

It actually sounds as though the UCI are seriously saying that because Frankie took the usual supplements, he was therefore looking to improve his performance, therefore was likely to be doping.

Are these people real? Does the unlovely Pat McQuaid not realise that this is what his people are saying?

To continue:

110. In fact, the fact that he trusted his team doctors means he's an idiot and he should have checked them himself. (Uh? He said that he reads the labels, what more can he realistically do?) So, 111, it's his fault, BAN HIM! BAN HIM! 2 YEARS! 2 YEARS! They discuss start dates for his 2-year ban. Frankie is probably sobbing in the corner by now. I know I would have been. AND CANCEL HIS RESULTS! AND FINE HIM THE MAXIMUM 70% OF INCOME!   AND PAY THE FEES AS WELL, YOU DIRTY DOG!

The other committee members throw cold water over the UCI contingent, and (116) reiterate the options of shorter suspensions, remind the hearing about the ineffectiveness of the stuff, and comment that these specified (not banned) substances are cropping up more and more often in drugs/supplements, as they are becoming less effective as masking agents... they go on to burden of proof, and repeat the points about if it doesn't enhance performance... etc etc... down to 122.

123. The fight against doping needs all athletes to be aware of what they are eating, it's very hard to do this, especially (125) when the evidence has disappeared.. burden of proof is on the athlete...they need to produce evidence if they wish to get reduction of suspension...

129 The hearing say the polygraph is not necessary. Actually, in the google translation it comes out as "not relevant". Then CAS admit how hard it is for athletes to supply this proof... duty to co-operate, good faith, blah blah blah, judge will decide, ALAD has co-operated very nicely, and has come up with some amazing theoretically plausible scenarios.

Then, at 135,  we finally get some positive speaking: ALAD reject the theory of Frankie deliberately taking the stuff, as being less likely. The levels were too low, besides, the undesirable side effects mean it is not available in Europe other than on prescription. Plus it was a very small amount, it is used for weight loss in weight-categorised sports (we know all this!), it's ludicrous to suggest that Skinny Frankie needs to lose weight, it's a bad masking agent: basically 135 - 144 is a repeat of all the points already covered, with 145 being a rejection of the suggestion of sabotage.

The hearing then went on to consider the "involuntary" theory: all riders ate the same food, three other riders were tested around the same time (Popovych, Zubeldia and Monfort) with no Xipamide found: we learn about the preparation of bottles ("X" = contains sugar!) before the race, and the individual labelled bottles (150) for recovery:  Frankie confirms that he didn't take any bottles from other teams, or from spectators, on the day of the adverse finding, or on the few days previous. Sabotage was therefore eliminated.

Finally, Frankie suggested contaminated food supplements as being the most likely route.

156. An expert pointed out that Xipamide had not been found in any WADA labs between 2003-2011.

157. ...but that was considered to be irrelevant.

158. Another expert said contamination was the most likely route, and could have been up to 4 days earlier.

Once again, drearily, we go over the supplements - the fact that not all of them were available for analysis in September (My, what short shelf lives these athletic supplements must have..) but everything they tested was clean... Frankie never took anything that wasn't supplied by the team, always read the label, etc... burden of proof.. percentage of possibilities...by 165, my computer was starting to glaze over.

Luckily, at 166 the Board decided it was probably involuntary, more legal stuff, blah blah, and pointed out the huge amount of supplements available for athletes, often from the sponsors (I feel this was a dig at the UCI) , then the hydration problem, low concentration, hair analysis, no masking properties, yawn, how many times do we have to go over these things?

Ooh, a change: page 34, SANCTIONS.

176, oh no, we're off again, legalese: then burden of proof, athlete must check labels, athletes must demonstrate that they have a high degree of vigilance, then a comment from CAS about how increasing numbers of athletes are hiding behind the "I read the label, honest, guv" excuse.

Interestingly, at 179 they tell a "precedent" story, from CAS, about an athlete who read the label, the leaflet and the packaging, and who even contacted the distributor to ask if a specific substance was in it, was told "no", used it, and was caught with an adverse finding. CAS reluctantly found him not guilty, on the grounds that he could not realistically have done much more to check. Although they did have the nerve to suggest that the athlete could have the supplements tested - or that they could just "not use them" !!

Lovely, I can just imagine a DS telling his team "no more Gatorade!" or "no more gels!".

Anyway *pause to stretch arms - this must be the longest post in the history of blogging * back to the plot:

180. "Athletes should be cautious..."  Yes, we get the message.

181 Suddenly, an odd comment: "the supplement consumed by Frankie has been contaminated in isolation."

Huh?

The tone changes.  It was involuntary. The penalties are not as hard for involuntary consumption. (Frankie, sobbing in the corner, looks up in hope.) Mr Schleck clearly only took what was provided by the team. The team doctors can only do their best to check that supplements are clean, they choose supplements that are proven to be clean, they cater to their sponsors, who are firms of high reputation: Frankie's team doctor since 2010 says "he's a good boy!" and the labelling (and the internet) all indicated that the products were clean.

But, still, 192, we keep coming back to this one, it is the responsibility of the athlete as to what he puts into his body.  However, they concede that the only further steps possible are to a) never use a supplement or b) have everything tested yourself. They agree that this is just not feasible.

The Board says that although he has a clean slate, never been in trouble, exemplary member of the peloton etc, he should not get the mere reprimand, but should have a 1-year ban. From today. But as he did voluntary suspension, we'll backdate it to October.  Oh, but now we've been told that he has not only taken voluntary suspension, but he has waived his salary. Oh, all right, we'll backdate it to July, then.

The UCI did not object.

Right! The Board state, 1-year ban, backdated. But we'll cancel all his results in the Tour.

Then there is a bit of UCI rule legalese, which made my brain hurt, but basically because he did not compete thereafter, the rule about losing your results did not apply. So he gets to keep his results up to that point.

Then it goes on to fines, income, etc etc (none of our business, as Inge says) but results in him not having to pay 70% of  his income, quite possibly on the basis that he hasn't had any damned income since the Tour!

So he ends up having to pay the costs of the Hearing, and the testing, some 3500 euros.

Well. I bet we are all nearly as relieved to get to the end of that lot, as Frankie was to get out of the Hearing.

So what now for Frankie? Well, 21 days of nail biting until the expiration of the Appeal deadline, in case the UCI want to take it further - but as there was a UCI representative there, I don't imagine that there will be any further movement.

So Frankie has another 6 months of unpaid leave: he won't be around to support Andy in the Tour - wonder if he'll take Martine and Leea off to somewhere nice while the Tour is on, so they don't have to watch it? Or will he be glued to the TV?

And who knows, maybe he'll bounce back into training, hit the Eneco Tour, and then win the Vuelta?

Whatever he does, we'll be with you, Frankie!

Oh, and:   *Waves to Andy*